Rachel bin Maddow is *quality.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Throbbin.

*music

So good!

Adding video to channels (Music) - requested by RedSky.

Maddow and Beck are 2 sides of the same coin. Fanatics who have nothing but hatred for the other side. I despise them both.

Conservatives turn against Liz Cheney

With all due respect, that's BS. I have never seen Maddow say or do anything that can be characterized as 'hatred'. In fact, she makes a point of inviting people from "the other side" to her show and engaging in real adult conversation.


>> ^My_design:
Maddow and Beck are 2 sides of the same coin. Fanatics who have nothing but hatred for the other side. I despise them both.

>> ^Throbbin:
With all due respect, that's BS. I have never seen Maddow say or do anything that can be characterized as 'hatred'. In fact, she makes a point of inviting people from "the other side" to her show and engaging in real adult conversation.


Absolutely. The only people who claim she's like Beck are the extreme rightwing crazies.

Maddow researches her stories (or at least has staff do it, I'm not privy to the division of labor there), and presents facts, inviting the other side to a reasoned discussion. The worst you can say is that she occasionally indulges in mockery when the right-wing crazies won't talk to her. And we've -seen- her ask Liz Cheney to be on the show.

Beck doesn't...he simply makes crap up, jumps to unbelievably paranoid conclusions (Rockefeller Center is full of secret Socialist messages) and then screams bloody murder. All while personally shilling his scammish advertisers.

Really? Because just the other day she was on the TV screaming about how Republicans are liars. She gets so upset and animated every time a Republican says something on TV or puts out an ad, all while not paying attention to the drivel put out by the Democrats. I only watch what Maddow I can stand on videosift and have yet to see anything that I can swallow past 2 minutes.
I don't even try to watch Glen Beck. He just pisses me off.

Thick sarcasm is thick!

Hope you like Cuba, Bin Maddow! That was fantastic... I want to see more of this.

Epic!

>> ^My_design:
Really? Because just the other day she was on the TV screaming about how Republicans are liars.

Umm, yeah. That's because they're telling lies. Not just framing things in a self-serving manner, not having a difference of opinion on how to deal with the issues facing the country, just flat out saying that black is white, up is down, and Obama is a socialist born in Kenya, then hoping no one calls 'em on it.

This would have been perfect if she had a big chalkboard...

actually she made an unintentional point - for the all the 911 conspiracy theorists. Guliani MUST have been in on it! (they already think Bush and Cheney were)

Wonder if Maddow can shoot golf balls out of her vagina??...Just wondering....she's got the ping-pong down pat-

>> ^gwiz665:
Thick sarcasm is thick!


no, you don't say!

>> ^My_design:
Maddow and Beck are 2 sides of the same coin. Fanatics who have nothing but hatred for the other side. I despise them both.


Of course the fact that she uses truth and he uses lies to push their agenda has no weight in your books?

>> ^My_design:
Maddow and Beck are 2 sides of the same coin. Fanatics who have nothing but hatred for the other side. I despise them both.


You aren't paying attention.

Wake up.

Well I guess I walked into a hornets nest. Maybe I'm wrong about Maddow, but when I see her get all worked up over something it reminds me of Beck crying. The fact that people categorically call Republicans liars and ignore the lies told by their own side annoys me. Republicans lie, Democrats lie, POLITICIANS lie.
It's all spin. When Maddow tells people that Republicans have used reconciliation in the past, but fails to mention what it was used for, it makes me wonder. Reconciliation was put in place to use in regards to the budget, were Republicans using it in regards to the budget? Or to push their own agenda? I don't know because she didn't say in the clip I saw. When Obama has previously stated that Health care needed to be passed with out reconciliation and now they are pushing for reconciliation does she call Democrats on it? Don't think so, but if she has then tell me where to see it and maybe I'll change my mind about her. Until then I don't trust a damn one of them or the shit they spread. America needs to clean house and put term limits on the House and Senate.

>> ^My_design:
When Maddow tells people that Republicans have used reconciliation in the past, but fails to mention what it was used for, it makes me wonder. Reconciliation was put in place to use in regards to the budget, were Republicans using it in regards to the budget? Or to push their own agenda? I don't know because she didn't say in the clip I saw. When Obama has previously stated that Health care needed to be passed with out reconciliation and now they are pushing for reconciliation does she call Democrats on it?

Okay, when you say "were Republicans using Reconciliation in regards to the budget, or to push their own agenda", you're presenting a false choice. The Republican agenda is to cut entitlement programs and/or cut taxes on the rich. That "has to do with the budget", but so does health care reform. The CBO says the Democratic bill will massively reduce the deficit. So yeah, the Democratic "agenda" is to pass health care reform, but it also "has to do with the budget".

Case in point though, Democrats passed their bill without reconciliation, they just want to pass another bill that modifies it a bit via reconciliation, and that bill will be focused on things like tax amounts and entitlement amounts -- budgetary stuff.

As for Obama saying they "needed" to avoid using reconciliation, I gotta say, I never heard him say that. I certainly heard him say that Democrats would rather not use reconciliation for the whole bill because it'd severely limit what they could do inside the bill, but that's moot because they've already passed the main bill under regular order with 60 votes, and are talking about using reconciliation for a different bill.

As for the larger Republican lie about how it's unprecedented to modify health care under reconciliation, they need a history lesson, or really a memory refresher because many were there for these earlier bills, particularly on the bills passed in the 90's and 2000's.

>> ^NetRunner... As for Obama saying they "needed" to avoid using reconciliation, I gotta say, I never heard him say that. I certainly heard him say that Democrats would rather not use reconciliation for the whole bill because it'd severely limit what they could do inside the bill ...

Thank you NetRunner, that helps explain a lot. But I've got a couple of other questions -
Democrats passed their bill? My understanding was that one bill passed the Senate and another the House, but that neither has passed both, hence Obama not being able to sign anything. Correct?
I know that the Republicans are doing a lot of double speak about reconciliation and are even accusing the Democrats of using a Nuclear option. Realizing that using Reconciliation is not the Nuclear option, in the past haven't Deomcrats spoken out against both the use of a Nuclear option as well as Reconciliation? Seems like despite their previous objections, on both party sides, either is willing to use the option when it suits their needs.
Come examples on Obama regarding Reconciliation:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/President-Obama-meet-Senator-Obama-on-reconciliation-86225302.html

It all just seems hypocritical.

@burdturgler, gonna have to respond to that one in detail later, for some reason I can't get the clip to play more than the first few seconds while I'm at work. Looks like they're taking old clips of Obama drawing distinctions between himself and Bush & Hillary (they're polarizing 50-plus-one types, and I'm a big-majority bipartisan guy) and conflating that with commentary on the budget reconciliation process.

@My_design, it's true that Democrats passed one bill in the Senate, and a different bill in the House, and until the same bill passes both houses, Obama can't sign it into law. The House could just pass the Senate bill, and we'd be done. The House doesn't want to do that, because there are provisions of the Senate bill they want removed or adjusted. Normally you'd have a conference committee, and try to pass the conference report through both houses again, but with Republicans committed to voting against HCR no matter what, Democrats aren't going to do that.

Instead they're going to pass a separate bill that modifies the Senate bill under reconciliation. They're going to write it to meet the restrictions of reconciliation, which means not much will change, essentially just the tax & subsidy portions will be altered.

Once that smaller bill has passed both houses, the House will pass the Senate bill, and send both to the President, who will sign the original Senate bill into law first, then the reconciliation "sidecar" second.

All that is kosher under the Senate rules (and the Constitution). IMO, it's cool with me that the Senate passes everything by majority vote from here on out, even if the Republicans regain control (but that's the real "nuclear option").

Now, accusing Democrats as being hypocritical on reconciliation is a bit better grounds, but I think you're trying to draw an equivalence that isn't justified. Republicans have used reconciliation time and time again to pass their agenda. Democrats didn't like that, and certainly spoke out against it then.

Difference is in what they said about it. Republicans are saying that this has never been done before -- which isn't true. Republicans are saying that Democrats are trying to pass the whole bill under reconciliation -- which isn't true. Republicans are saying that the filibuster is some sort of Constitutionally-mandated thing -- it isn't, and just a few years ago they argued that the Constitution said the reverse.

Now, what you quoted Obama as saying was "I think we need a full debate", not "you shouldn't be allowed to pass this without approval from my party (which we'll never give, so stop trying already), and if you do it'll be the end of democracy itself!"

When Democrats opposed the Bush tax cuts, they said reconciliation was meant to balance the budget, not explode it. That, as opposed to what Republicans are saying, is actually factually accurate, and it's not inconsistent with what they're planning on doing with reconciliation now.

Hence, no real need for Rachel to trash Democrats for "lying", unless she was a) a right-wing ideologue creating political cover for Republicans or b) wants to try to be "neutral" and misrepresent things so Democrats and Republicans look equally guilty.

OK so now I think I understand why the American people just throw their hands in the air and run around like panicked sheep. Why the hell can't people explain some of these things more like you did above? With out any historical reference for what is being discussed, you have to admit that it is pretty easy to get sidetracked and turned around. Perhaps my dislike for Maddow purely comes out of a lack of understanding for her position. But with Republican propaganda and Democratic retorts it becomes difficult if not impossible to understand where the truth really lies. Because of this I've tended to lump them all into the same ball of political mess. Thank you NetRunner for the explanation. It does seem to me that using reconciliation to pass a modification on to a bill so as to make a previously impassable bill passable, while technically within the Senate rules and under the Constitution, is a little off. But maybe, in my now rather confused mind, I find myself coming to the conclusion that our system really is broken.

@My_design, assuming you're not just humoring me, then it was well worth the effort to type up. I'm glad if I was able shine a little light on the situation.

I do think the "make a previously impassable bill passable" bit should make you hesitate, except I would point out that the reason why it wasn't passable wasn't because it couldn't win a majority vote in both houses, but because it's being blocked from coming to a vote by a Republican filibuster. That means that when Democrats file a motion to end debate and move to a vote (aka cloture), the motion would get 59 votes in favor, 41 against, and since you need a 3/5ths majority (60 votes) to end debate, the motion would fail. If just one Republican would say "I think we've debated this enough", it would come up for an up or down vote, with a simple majority being sufficient to pass the bill.

All reconciliation does is put a 20 hour fixed time limit on debate. No vote for cloture is needed, instead you just move to a vote after the 20 hours for debate expire.

Reconciliation was specifically designed that way to prevent a minority party from filibustering bills that are designed to reduce the deficit, which this bill will.

From my POV, I think this is what Democrats should do, and I think it's a shame that Republicans are forcing Democrats to go down this route, rather than accept any of the numerous olive branches Obama and Democrats have offered them over the last year to win them over, but I'm gung-ho for universal healthcare, and wish the bill would have done more.

I'm not humoring you. I really am interested and respect you view points and appreciate the information. I really do wish that more people presented in a factual, non-emotional format. Honestly I've been trying to figure out the whole health care thing for a while. Unfortunately my dad is a Limbaugh listening true believer. Me, I'm way more open. Especially since my wife is fairly liberal and used to work for Habitat for Humanity. It's rather eye opening. I totally agree that it would be nice to have universal health care and places like Hawaii have been able to figure it all out, I'm just concerned about the federal government trying to do it.
One other question, if the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, prior to Kennedy's death, then what kept them from getting this thing passed the first time around? I would think that it would have been better for them to pass the bill when they could and then make the changes later.
All of this does go a long way towards my understanding of this particular situation, but does nothing to fix my belief that most politicians merely look out for themselves. Maybe not all, but most. I've got a particular hatred of Pelosi, but that is professionally related and is based on her push for last years CPSIA regulations. I know a whole lot more about that then Health care.

>> ^My_design:
One other question, if the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, prior to Kennedy's death, then what kept them from getting this thing passed the first time around? I would think that it would have been better for them to pass the bill when they could and then make the changes later.

You and me both! Democrats seem to love to shoot themselves in the foot. They were bending over backwards and tying themselves into knots to make the bill appealing enough to conservatives to win Republican votes.

They also have members of their own party whose electoral strategy is to be "centrist", which often means "hold legislation hostage until Democrats water down their legislation." There also was a pretty drawn out argument between the Senate and the House about things like the public option, employer mandates, how to pay for it (liberals wanted to tax the rich, conservadems wanted to repeal the tax exemption on employer benefits), the overall level at which people would be subsidized, and even whether there would be a single, nationwide "exchange" set up, or if they would be done state-by-state. The conservadems in the Senate won every single one of those fights by holding their breath and refusing to vote for the bill until they got their way. After they lost the race in MA, there wasn't any way for the House to try to claw any of those back, except some of the tax & subsidy stuff (via the reconciliation "sidecar").

I also think losing the Senate race in Massachusetts itself was political malpractice. There was no way a Republican should have won that race, but Coakley went on vacation after the primary (literally and figuratively), and Brown went to everyone's front yard and asked for their vote. That's a recipe for success, no matter what the prevailing political environment looks like. Voters don't like to be taken for granted like that.